In my Herald column I look at the court judgement. First the political aspect:

On the political front the decision is as popular with the Government as a colonoscopy. It might turn out to be good for you in the long term, but it is making life very uncomfortable for now.

For the Opposition, it was like an early visit from the Easter Bunny, just as their chocolate supply was running out. The questioning in the first week of Parliament this year on the issue amounted to little as Ministers ran the line that they were merely applying the law, and that there were no lawful reasons to decline the application by Shanghai Pengxin.

And the economic aspect:

Putting aside the practicality aspects, it is hard to argue with the logic of the learned judge, that any benefit should be measured against a domestic buyer, rather than against the status quo. By measuring against the status quo, it is almost inevitable that net benefits will be found as new buyers always will have investment plans greater than the seller.

I conclude the the days of the OIO saying yes to most applications may be in the past.

In my Herald column I look at the first week of question time. I praise Winston first:

Winston is back in Parliament, and had a good first week in the House. His chosen issue of wasteful spending under the whanau ora programme is a good one for him (and one I approve of). Labour and Greens are reluctant to go there, as they worry that they may be seen as being against the aims of whanau ora, which is seeking to improve the lives of whanau.

But also note:

There has been a fascinating series of exchanges between the Speaker and Peters. Peters complains that the PM has not answered his question, and the Speaker points out it is totally unreasonable to expect the PM to be able to answer a supplementary question on details of a small grant, when the primary question did not refer to the grant in question. Despite being told this on Tuesday and Wednesday, Peters persisted with this approach, and again on Thursday got the same reply from the PM. If he is smart, he will take the advice of Mr Speaker, and start providing details of the alleged wasteful spending in the primary question. But maybe secrecy is so ingrained with him, he can’t bear to reveal his target in advance.

I also look at the Greens and Labour.

There was a glitch in publishing my normal Friday column in the Herald on Friday, but for those interested it is up now. I note:

If National had received around 5,000 fewer party votes, or if National voters in Epsom and Ohariu had failed to vote for the ACT and United Future candidates respectively, then the conflict over treaty clauses in SOEs would be critical. …

Parliament resumes next week, so should have no shortage of things to write about then.

In my Herald column I argue Auckland needs to get bigger:

I’m not sure if Aucklanders are aware how much is at stake with this Auckland plan. Do they want a city where almost half the dwellings are apartments?

The other impact of this proposed intensification will be on house prices. Currently there are 400,000 houses and 100,000 apartments for 1.5 million Aucklanders. By 2040 there would be 2.5 million Aucklanders competing for only 500,000 houses. I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to push house prices up massively so only the rich can afford one.

House prices are deemed to start to become moderately unaffordable when the median house price is three times the median income, seriously unaffordable at four times and severely unaffordable at five times.

In Auckland the median house price is currently 6.4 times the median income.

Under the draft Auckland plan, Auckland could by 2040 end up like Hong Kong – where house prices are more than ten times the median household income. Again, this will restrict ownership to the wealthy, but also lead to rents significantly increasing as a proportion of income. Already a growing number of families are paying more than 30% of their income in rent. Under the intensification plan, some families could end up having to spend over half their income on rent.

I conclude:

Auckland needs to grow outwards as well as upwards. A plan to have 75% of new dwellings occur within the current urban limit is too draconian. A 50/50 split would be a far better balance for Auckland’s future. The Government and the Productivity Commission have both asked the Council to alter their plan, to allow the city to grow outwards as well as upwards. I hope they listen.

If they don’t, I pity those under 20, who will have to live with the consequences.

In my Herald column yesterday I asked if 2012 will be the year of the Greens?

In my column at the NZ Herald. I start by saying:

The industrial action at the Ports of Auckland has reached the point, when a compromise solution is about as likely as there being a compromise solution over the Falkland Islands.

Instead, like the Falkland Islands, there will be a war, and there will be a winner and a loser. There will also be the significant possibility of casualties from other parties.

The two combatants are the Ports of Auckland (POAL) management team led by Field Marshall Toby Gibson and the Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) led by Generalissimus Garry Parsloe.

The stakes are high for both sides. The losing side will be humiliated and powerless.

I also look at who else faces being dragged onto this war.

In my Herald column I hand out some awards. The summary:

• ACT MP of the Year – Rodney Hide
• Maori Party MP of the Year – Te Ururoa Flavell
• Green MP of the Year – Gareth Hughes
• Labour Mp of the Year – Damien O’Connor
• National MP of the Year – Gerry Brownlee
• MP of the Year – John Key

In my column at the NZ Herald I make a case for term limits:

I still believe a term limit of say six terms would be a good thing for New Zealand. If MPs knew that they had a maximum tenure in Parliament, I believe they would focus more on what they could achieve during that limited time, rather than be focused on how to get re-elected time after time after time.

Arguably one could also have a term limit for the top job of Prime Minister also. Isn’t nine years enough for any one person to make a contribution?

I hope the constitutional review will consider term limits as an issue.

In my column at the NZ Herald I write on how National’s second term looks to have plenty of reform:

Many National supporters were frustrated at the lack of reform in National’s first term.

They saw National cancels its planned income tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, rather than cut interest free student loans and Working for Families. They saw a soaring deficit, and the Government’s response was to slow the rate of spending increase only. They saw a ban on asset sales, despite this being common amongst centre-right and centre-left Governments around the world.

National’s second term is looking to be far more pleasing to those who want to see a reform agenda. This doesn’t just mean a more right wing agenda. The Hawke/Keating Governments in Australia were good reformers, as was Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. Even Julia Gillard is undertaking some quite good reforms.

So what are the areas of reform for John Key’s second term?

Industrial Relations

The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through strikes and lockouts. Many people are staggered that an unskilled job can pay an average of over $90,000 a year and still have people on strike over it.

I also cover asset part-sales, welfare reform, education and spending.

In my NZ Herald column I label David Shearer the right man for Labour. I conclude:

As a National supporter, I know National will not always be in Government. I think a David Shearer led Labour Party will pose more of a threat to National, than any alternative leader. But I still hope that the Labour Caucus will elect Shearer as their leader, as if there is to be a Labour Government, I think the sort of policies we would get under a Shearer administration would be far better than we had under Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, or were offered by Phil Goff.

Shearer is backed by many reformers within Labour. A likely area of reform is around list ranking and candidate selection – specifically the heavy influence union affiliates get in these decisions. Many in the caucus are upset that new MPs such as Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash were ranked below longer serving MPs with union backgrounds. They lost some of their most promising talent from 2008. If a Shearer led Labour can reform the party so that it operates on a one person, one vote principle then Labour is far more likely to regain the votes of its former supporters.

It will be interesting to see how Cunliffe and Shearer do on The Nation tomorrow.

My Herald column looks at what happens if Winston decides again.

This means that Winston Peters will decide who gets to be Prime Minister of New Zealand for the third time out of six MMP elections. In 1996 he chose Jim Bolger over Helen Clark, in 2005 he chose Helen Clark over Don Brash and if he holds the balance of power in 2011, make no mistake he will choose Phil Goff over John Key, and there will be a Government that can only pass a law if it can get the Greens, Winston, Hone, and the Maori Party to all agree to it.

And imagine the blowout in spending and debt!

Again polls have shown a certain reluctance for National voters to tactically vote for ACT. I speak often to many National supporters in Epsom. To a person, they all want National to have a coalition partner to the right (economically) of National. The debate is whether ACT in its crippled state is worth saving, or whether you do the humane thing and put it to sleep with some electoral euthanasia, allowing a new party to arise phoenix like from the ashes.

The prospect of Winston Peters installing Phil Goff as Prime Minister should be sufficient to resolve that debate. If they do not vote for John Banks, then a change of Government becomes significantly more likely.

Epsom voters now have a clear choice.

MMP is perfect for demagogues such as Peters. He selects who will be on his party list, and they become MPs based on his personal popularity, despite the fact 99% of New Zealanders could not tell you who the top six candidates on his list are. Their loyalty is purely to him, not to the New Zealand public.

STV will still deliver broadly proportional results, but candidates will have to actually be someone whom voters rank high enough with their ballots, to elect to Parliament. This should result in a significant improvement of the quality of candidates, if there is no backdoor through a party list.

I will blog more fully next week on the merits of STV.

In my Herald column, I look at what the Herald Digipoll suggests could be an alternative to a National-led Government – a Labour/Green/NZ First/Maori/Mana Government.

It is hard to imagine Hone Harawira would settle for anything less than Maori Affairs. He would not trust any Department headed up and/or staffed by Pakeha mofos.

Andrew Williams would put his hand up to be Minister of Local Government, bringing all his diplomatic skills to the job. That anguished scream you hear is Len Brown jumping out his Auckland Town Hall office window.

Who knows what bauble Winston Peters would take. He’s already had so many – Deputy PM, Treasurer, Foreign Minister. As he is a lawyer, perhaps he would become the nation’s Attorney-General?

The Greens would be very fortunate. On their current polling Phil Goff would have to make their entire current caucus Ministers of the Crown. Catherine Delahunty would be a shoo-in to be Treaty Negotiations Minister. Has any Ngati Pakeha ever been more supportive of Maori aspiration than Catherine?

This is what people may wake up to on the 27th of November. I do see the bright side though:

As a blogger and political commentator, such a Government would be wonderful. Every day would be wonderfully exciting as Phil Goff (who struggles to have discipline even over his own caucus) tries to get Winston and Hone to agree on what laws he is allowed to pass. With a one vote majority, every single MP and party would have a veto over all Government decisions. This would mean that no one can predict in advance what the Government will do. The biggest beneficiary of such an election result would be the iPredict predictions market.

It would be a blogger’s dream!

In my Herald column I look at why Labour did not rise in the weekly Herald Digipoll:

I think the reason is because the public are not convinced Phil Goff and Labour believe in them (their policies) themselves. This is hugely important to voters. They will vote for a party if they believe the party is sincere and believes in its policies – even if they themselves do not agree with them all. …

So if you change you policies and your position, especially from just three months earlier, you need to make the case for why you have changed your stance.

The same applies to Labour’s stance on the Government’s books. Labour spent two and a half year attacking every single decision the Government took to reduce spending to get New Zealand out of the projected permanent deficit that Treasury projected at the end of 2008. They not only opposed every spending cut that the Government made, they actually argued that the Government should be spending massively more like Obama did. Right up until 2011 they were arguing that it was more important to borrow and spend to (temporarily) boost the domestic economy than to keep a lid on spending.

Then a few months ago, they realised that the voters were becoming very worried about debt, in light of the on-going troubles in Europe, and suddenly Labour stopped arguing that the Government should spend more, and said that they would spend and borrow pretty much the same as National was.

Labour’s problem again, is whether voters will believe them. It doesn’t really matter that much what numbers they announce today as their fiscal plan. The bigger issue is whether voters actually believe that the current Labour caucus really believes in spending restraint, when they have spent two and a half years arguing against it at every opportunity.

The full column is at the NZ Herald.

In my column at the Herald, I cover Labour’s Savings Policy. Some extracts:

New Zealand has the most generous public superannuation scheme in the world. …

So Labour have opened the doors for a national debate on both the age of eligibility and on means testing NZ Superannuation. They deserve praise for such a bold step. Our current scheme is too generous and unsustainable. …

Labour’s policy overall has a mixture of good and bad. I think it is an improvement over the status quo, and their willingness to advocate the age change gives them greater credibility. It’s a bold start to the campaign to tell New Zealanders that our taxpayer funded superannuation scheme is too generous. It almost reminds me of the Phil Goff of old, and yes that is a compliment.

I find it amusing that even when I praise Phil Goff, some nutters attack me for being too partisan.

I devote my Herald column to Labour’s work and wages policy. Many of my Herald columns are reasonably reflective. In this one, I call a spade a spade.

In my Herald column I ask whether the HMNZS National will be able to get off the reef. The beginning:

I was asked at a speaking engagement a couple of weeks ago whether the election was a foregone conclusion, as there was such a lead in the polls for National. My response was to quote former United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and say “Events, dear boy, events”. This famous quote was Macmillan’s response to the question of what is most likely to blow a Government off course. And the blowing of the Rena off course onto a reef near Tauranga most definitely is an event.

In my Herald column I note the final sitting day of the 49th Parliament and look forward to the elections for the 50th Parliament, in 50 days time. I make some early predictions as to which parties will and will not be back.

My column at the NZ Herald is titled Will cannabis propel Goff to power? An extract:

Even if Labour gets a worse result than they did in 2008, and even if National gets a better result than they did in 2008, the country may end up with Prime Minister Phil Goff. …

The interesting thing with this scenario is that National/ACT would have secured more votes than the Goff Government. National/ACT could get 49% and Labour/Green/NZ First/Maori/Mana 48% in total. But the over-hang for the Maori seats would deliver power to the parties that got fewer votes. Any protests would be futile, as the MMP referendum would have just concluded, probably confirming MMP.

The column focuses on the dangers for National if it has no coalition partners beyond one MP parties.

My column at the NZ Herald is over the different party’s positions on the police surveillance law.

My David Farrar on Politics column in the Herald is of course on the Rugby World Cup, as it has been the issue of the week.

My column at the NZ Herald is on how the Rugby World Cup may affect the election. An extract:

Now of course it was not the current Government that bid for the Rugby World Cup. The bid was led by Helen Clark around six years ago, and it was her Government that agreed on the timing with the IRB. It is possible that a motivating factor was the thought that if Labour had won a fourth term, then this could help them win an unprecedented fifth term, making Clark the longest serving Prime Minister.

My NZ Herald column is on the politics of asset sales. I look at the risks to the Government, and ask and answer the question about why they are doing it , despite the political risk.

My column at the NZ Herald is about how today is the start of the Taxpayer Relief Regulated Period.

We are now officially within three months of the general election. Today is the start of what the law calls the regulated period. It restricts how much money political parties can spend of their own money on election advertising, but more popularly cuts off taxpayer funded election advertisements from MPs. …

So if from today you see anything from your MP or from a parliamentary party that has the crest of the House of Representatives on it (indicating Parliament has paid for it), and it is advocating either explicitly or implicitly for or against a party or candidate, then you should send a copy of it to the New Zealand Herald who I am sure will happily inquire to the Parliamentary Service whether the taxpayer is due any refunds.

Only 13 weeks to go until E-day!

In my column at the NZ Herald, I talk about the secondary battle – for electorate seats, and review the seats which are expected to be competitive.

In my NZ Herald column I look at the causes of the English riots and make the case for lowering the youth minimum wage to reduce teenage unemployment in NZ from 27%.